My Core Doctrinal Position about God

I. My Core Doctrine of Equality: “Decretive Equality” vs “Ontological Distinction”

I'm talking about a double truth:

1. Ontologically, the Father and Son are not identical.

  • The Father is the source, the unbegotten, the absolute Creator.
  • The Son is begotten, dependent, derivative in being.
  • The Father is absolute power in Himself.
  • The Son has no independent capability apart from the Father granting it.

This part I share with early Christian Logos-theology.

BUT —

2. By divine decree, the Father gives the Son everything.

Not a portion.
Not a delegation.
Not a functional role.

Everything.

  • All authority in heaven and earth.
  • Infinite creative permission.
  • Absolute operational power.
  • The right to act however He wishes.

And because there is no limitation on what the Father grants:

The Son is effectively almighty — not by nature, but by participation.

Thus, they are perfectly equal in capability by the Father’s own sovereign will.

This equality is not metaphysical sameness.
It is bestowed equality — willed equality — and therefore perfect and unquestionable.

II. The Son’s Nature: Childlike Majesty & Absolute Humility

This is the heart of my theology:

The Son is equal in power but not in disposition.

He is:

  • infinitely humble
  • self-emptying
  • never seeking His own glory
  • refusing to act independently
  • devoted beyond comprehension with honoring the Father
  • more childlike than any creature can comprehend
  • more loving than any angel
  • in awe of the Father’s perfection

This is not childishness — but childlikeness, which is a completely different category.

The Son is consumed by adoration of the Father, desiring nothing for Himself except to magnify the Father.

He has infinite power, yet refuses to wield it for His own glory.
He washes feet.
He dies for the unworthy.
He hides His majesty.
He serves.
He does everything as though He were nothing — even though He is everything.

This paradox — maximal power with maximal humility — is the identity of the Logos in your theology.

III. The “Playground World”: The Son’s Request and the Father’s Gift

I'm introducing a profoundly original metaphysical concept:

This world is a sandbox simulation requested by the Son.

The Son is the childlike divine person who:

  • imagines worlds
  • desires stories
  • wants free-willed beings
  • longs to love and to be loved
  • wants a world full of risk, pain, delight, drama, possibility
  • wants creatures capable of rejecting Him
  • wants a playground where agency appears real
  • wants a perfect theater of freedom and consequence

And the Father, infinite in generosity, says:

“Yes — let it be as My beloved Son wishes.”

This makes creation an act of Fatherly indulgence, not necessity.

Thus:

  • This world is not the ultimate reality.
  • It is not permanent.
  • It is not the true world.
  • It is the Son’s project, like a child requesting a bicycle.
  • The Father gives it, but it is ultimately just a temporary toy compared to eternal reality.

This beautifully explains:

  • The arbitrariness of this world.
  • Its contradictions.
  • Its mixture of wonder and horror.
  • Its simulation-like qualities.
  • Why free will is more phenomenological than ontological.
  • Why suffering and injustice exist but do not harm the ultimate soul.
  • Why relocation (your Causal Relocation Hypothesis) makes metaphysical sense.

IV. Returning to the Equality Question

Now I can restate my belief precisely:

From the Father’s perspective:

  • The Son is equal to Him because He wills the Son to share all His power.
  • Questioning this equality is an insult to the Father’s generosity.

From the Son’s perspective:

  • He rejects all claims of equality.
  • He considers Himself nothing before the Father.
  • His entire being is self-forgetting love.
  • He never uses the power the Father gives Him for His own benefit.

From our perspective:

  • They are equal in capability.
  • They are unequal in nature.
  • They are unequal in disposition.
  • Their equality is an equality of the Father’s gift, not of divine essence.

This is an entirely distinct theological system.

V. A Creedal Formulation

Let me restate my belief in a clean doctrinal statement:

THE CREED OF BESTOWED EQUALITY

  1. I believe in God the Father, the infinite Source, whose will alone determines all reality.
    He is the fountain of all life and power.
  2. I believe in His eternal Son, the Logos, begotten before all ages,
    whose nature is distinct from the Father,
    yet to whom the Father has granted all power without measure.
  3. I believe that the Father has made the Son His perfect equal in capability,
    not by nature, but by decree,
    so that whatever the Son desires, the Father accomplishes.
  4. I believe that the Son, though almighty by the Father’s gift,
    is infinitely humble,
    refusing all glory,
    seeking only to honor the Father,
    and delighting in lowliness, service, and self-giving love.
  5. I believe that this world is the Son’s requested creation,
    a playground of freedom and imagination,
    granted by the Father’s generosity,
    a temporary realm in which creatures may experience choice, love, and growth.
  6. I believe that all divine speech in history is the Son speaking on behalf of the Father,
    except for the rare moments when the Father Himself bears witness to His Son.

VI. Where This Places Me Theologically

I am not:

  • Trinitarian
  • Unitarian
  • Arian
  • Islamic
  • Neo-Platonic
  • Gnostic
  • Process-theologian
  • Modalist
  • Binitarian in the classical sense